Hillsborough prosecutions |
Hillsborough prosecutions |
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.
If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later. If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there. Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial. No witness is required to incriminate themselves - Rule 22 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 18:43
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Indeed but it seems a bit counterintuitive to spend £millions to "get to the bottom" of something if you concurrently want all your witnesses to be worried about putting their foot in it.
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 20:24
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Indeed but it seems a bit counterintuitive to spend £millions to "get to the bottom" of something if you concurrently want all your witnesses to be worried about putting their foot in it. I tend to keep my views on it to myself. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 21:21
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial. If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later. If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there. Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time. You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:06
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I think with Grenfell they are reasonably safe because it will be better to put the boot into
- Bastard landlords who don't spend money on things. - Anyone from an organisation with "Kensington and Chelsea" in the name. - Bastard pretentious architects. - Bastard DIY products that sound great in B&Q but actually end up burning down your house when you get them home. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:45
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial. If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later. If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there. Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time. You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them. It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
......….It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose. --Churchmouse That's my take on Grenfell. Someone chose the cladding. Which may have been acceptable under UK laws but isn't elsewhere in the world on high rise buildings. That choice is the root cause of all else that happened. On Hillsborough, I'm struggling to see gross negligence re the deaths. Lots of issues with the aftermath and cover ups but if I understand it correctly, there was a whole series of things that conspired to cause the tragedy. Terraces, lack or not enough barriers on the terraces, fans pushing to get in, crowd fences to mention a few. Yes, opening the gate let in a flood but was that gross negligence or an error of judgement ? |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:13
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them. I think all the questions so far have been fair, especially in relation to the training and policies. The answers we have on the record to date mean that the higher ups can later be called to explain why the officers on the grounds had not received any training as to when, for example, they should abandon the stay put policy (which clearly is a serious issue that needs to be fully explored). -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:48
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,721 |
......….It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose. --Churchmouse That's my take on Grenfell. Someone chose the cladding. Which may have been acceptable under UK laws but isn't elsewhere in the world on high rise buildings. That choice is the root cause of all else that happened. On Hillsborough, I'm struggling to see gross negligence re the deaths. Lots of issues with the aftermath and cover ups but if I understand it correctly, there was a whole series of things that conspired to cause the tragedy. Terraces, lack or not enough barriers on the terraces, fans pushing to get in, crowd fences to mention a few. Yes, opening the gate let in a flood but was that gross negligence or an error of judgement ? Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:53
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
.........Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention. Yeah...right ! While I always felt that the fans being blamed alone was one sided and wrong, if no one was pushing, WTF caused the crush ? |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:56
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
.........Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention. Yeah...right ! While I always felt that the fans being blamed alone was one sided and wrong, if no one was pushing, WTF caused the crush ? It's fairly accepted that if you have a large crowd you need crowd management no matter what the venue. If you've ever been to the Leppings Lane end in Hillsborough you'll know the first thing you see as you walk in is the tunnel to that pen. It is the natural path, and naturally as a football fan you want to see the pitch. The suggestion is that opening the gate wasn't in itself a mistake, but that when it had been done previously police and/or stewards had been used to direct fans to side pens, and the decision to direct staff should have been done by Duckenfield when opening the gate. The fact he didn't do that was obviously part inexperience and part poor ground design that it would even be needed. If you walk into a modern stadium the whole thing is designed like a colander to filter crowds so that this could never occur. That said, if you take charge of a crappy venue you know your are in the firing line if anything goes wrong. |
|
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 08:40
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial. If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later. If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there. Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time. You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them. It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose. --Churchmouse I'm going to be meeting the chemist that originally developed the filling material this week She has a list of questions that the inquiry should be answering As far as I know, she hasn't been invited - will have to ask why |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:59 |